Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A+A on Brexit - The Return of the Living Dead
Comments
-
Would that be Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson?
BTW, a spokesman from the US state department seems to have had trouble processing the news and after briefly composing himself, went on to explain that the US is "always going to be able to work with the British no matter who is occupying the role of Foreign Secretary."
High praise indeed.
0 -
From the flood of articles describing the ongoing national and international cluster*uck which is brexit, here are two worth reading. The first is a look at Andrea Leadsom, Teresa May's now-defeated rival for the top job:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/09/andrea-leadsom-tory-leadership-am-dram-peasant-revolt
And here's a former High Commissioner of Canada to the United Kingdom with a fairly realistic review of recent events in the UK:
https://www.opencanada.org/features/brexit-post-mortem-17-takeaways-fallen-david-cameron/0 -
-
[...] that remark is beyond repute.
But Johnson and the rest of the individuals in the Leave campaign abjured the abuse of individuals while instead choosing to abuse the trust of millions by spinning a cleverly-constructed mirage of deceit and xenophobia for the purposes of advancing their own careers at the cost of others. One abuse is emotional and physical while one is political, but both remain abuses of trust.0 -
Nevertheless Boris wins again.
Gets a top job, while Cameron goes off to join Tony Blair, our Bertie, and George Bush on the lecture circuit, or getting paid to be listed as a director of some random company.
Boris and Cameron, both Eton classmates, but only Boris got in on a scholarship.
As the new Foreign Secretary, he may have to steer clear of Turkey for a while though. Boris' acclaimed poetry, for those who missed it0 -
Advertisement
-
Nevertheless Boris wins again.
Meanwhile, May has generally deployed Brexiteers to positions of responsibility for dealing with brexit - a process which is unlikely to end well for the country or the politicians concerned - and signals, once again, that the Conservatives are more interested in dealing temporarily with their own party's internal political strife than doing the job of running the country which they were elected to do.
Here's a fairly realistic assessment of May's brexit options from here:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit0 -
European commission vice-president suggested that Boris is a racist and a hate-monger;...and his first speech as Foreign Secretary saw him retreat at the end to a hail of boos.Here's a fairly realistic assessment of May's brexit options from here:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit0 -
-
Pseudo-legalistic nonsense, more like.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
It has already started. Without getting hung up on the word "preliminary", it is obvious that no trade deal can take effect until the UK has officially left the EU. That is the actual restriction resulting from the law being referred to.0
-
It has already started. Without getting hung up on the word "preliminary", it is obvious that no trade deal can take effect until the UK has officially left the EU. That is the actual restriction resulting from the law being referred to.
from the linkGovernment sources said talks were unlikely to go into great detail but would provide an early platform for future negotiations. Javid said he would use the discussions to outline the government’s “vision for what the UK’s future trade relationship might look like”.
That indeed does seem a very reasonable and prudent thing to do. Set out 'how we might find a deal' in the future, who talks to who etc. Very little in the way of nitty gritty which of course is the problem, given that the arguments over the dots on an i and the cross on a t are what is going to be the most difficult and lengthy parts of all of this.
Interesting of course to listen to people speaking to the parliamentary committee the other day about their thoughts on the matter. Both agree that 'where there's a will there's a way' with regards to getting up and running, but both were very negative about the prospects of full and worthwhile engagement, on anything like the 'wanted' terms.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/edd13153-7ed7-48b3-9643-472e6be0462eWitnesses: Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy, Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute
That's from an economic and absolutely not a legal perspective.
Here's the legal perspective, questions asked by the same committee of some legal experts.
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/cb083c53-3998-4f3a-8eca-e114e3dbdf0bWitnesses: Professor Michael Dougan, Professor of European Law, University of Liverpool, Dr Robin Niblett CMG, Director, Chatham House, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, former UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and Raoul Ruparel, Co-Director, Open Europe.
Here are two other videos created by one of the witnesses that help to describe both the legal situation before the vote and now in legal situation in the 'post vote pre Article 50' limbo position.
Quite a lot of video to cover there, and am not expecting you to do so unless you really are interested. I have been through the lot though. Ignoring that there are very real legal issues is not really an option I'm afraid.0 -
I notice that you are (wisely) not quite backing the false premise that no trade negotiations will take place until after UK has completely left the EU.
I like the Prof. Dougan video, he is a straight talker. Just to pick out one point, his idea that the compatibility of the "regulatory environment" is more important to international trade than simple export tariffs (which can be slapped on or off quite easily). This is correct, but he ignores the fact that Chinese goods can be CE marked and sold in the EU now, despite China being outside the EU. So, in reality the UK after Brexit will be forced into manufacturing its goods to EU standards. BS standards will continue to mimic EN standards. That is not a major imposition, it is just a slight loss of status. We were in the same position for years ourselves vis á vis the UK; so when they switched to 3 pin plugs, we did too. We copied all their regulatory standards, and our electrical appliances ran at a compatible voltage and hertz. The UK will be in the same kind of relationship with the EU; forced to ape all the relevant standards, simply localising the names and title pages.
The overall problem that Brexit has exposed in the EU is that it has grown too far too soon, so that it now falls somewhere between a common market and a federation. The euro has been a disaster for peripheral countries. The Schengen borderless core has been a disaster, in the absence of external borders.
The UK has shown it can change. The next stage is for the EU to change into a two-tier organisation. Tier 1 needs more federalisation; a banking union, central fiscal policies, a common tax and social welfare zone, an effective external border. Within Tier 1, the citizens of peripheral countries should not be disadvantaged as they are now. A car should be the same price in Ireland as it is in Germany. A mortgage should be loaned out at the same interest rate.
Tier 2 needs to be just a common market, without free movement of people. Countries such as the UK, Norway, Switzerland would prefer this. Also, the accession countries such as Romania should have been required to remain in Tier 2 for several decades or as long as it took for their economies, political, and justice systems to "harmonise" with the Tier 1 countries.0 -
EU and EEA is what you are proposing.
They exist.
While we don't have an overarching federal structure, there are 'agreements' which aim to create a somewhat federal system. Growth & Stability Pact is in effect an attempt at a fiscal union, though without debt mutualisation and/or enormous wealth transfers (these occur through EU structural Grants though).
I would be one who still is unsure about what all the fuss is behind actually aiming and being outright and straight about the idea of the "United States of Europe". I understand that it won't be formed overnight, but I see nothing wrong whatsoever with being open about that being 'the plan' for the EU.0 -
I would be one who still is unsure about what all the fuss is behind actually aiming and being outright and straight about the idea of the "United States of Europe". I understand that it won't be formed overnight, but I see nothing wrong whatsoever with being open about that being 'the plan' for the EU.
IN practice the Eurozone is just that a US of E. There are elements missing , but they are being considered0 -
The whole thing is based on a false premise; that the UK will trigger Brexit and then sit on its hands for the next two years, instead of instigating alternative arrangements and trade deals.
what alternative arrangements. The EU accounts for close to 50% of its trade and is of huge strategic importance to the UK tech industry and finance industries in particular
It CANNOT arrange bilateral trade deals with EU members, hence it can only arrange deals with non EU countries, many of which are not of much economic importance to the UK. Equally any major trade deal , like with the US, or china , will take years to accomplish and will only be likely too happen POST the completion of the Article 50 process, when other countries can see the certainty. The whole issue with NI and Scottish desires to remain in the EU will also have to be resolved before any third trade deal will be signed
The fact is simple , the leave campaign was full of disingenuous lies and the UK has f&cked itself in the process . There is no upside0 -
The uncertainty continues - who has the necessary authority to execute Article 50? Parliament and the PM each seem to think they do; the legal establishment agrees with one side, but not the other; the judiciary is unhappy treading in this area; a legal decision in favour of Parliament could trigger further political and constitutional problems.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/how-a-hairdresser-s-lawsuit-could-spell-trouble-for-brexit-1.27490340 -
The Parliament has not said it needs to be consulted. A hairdresser has. That is an important distinction.
In fact, the authority comes from the people, via referendum. The govt. can implement the will of the people directly, without going through the elected representatives, who are only the middlemen in this scenario. That's how it will play out, but at the same time it is a novel situation because referendums are quite rare in the UK.
Of more interest to us is maintaining the free trade status between Ireland and the UK. In an ideal world this would be a no-brainer because both of us want to maintain a free trade arrangement.
But in this brave new world where all the big EU decisions are made in Berlin, we must wait to receive our orders. The EU demands will be decided by Merkel and presented to the French for agreement, and then subsequently rubber-stamped at an EU Council of Ministers meeting. Apparently Merkel is less enthusiastic about "punishing" the UK with hefty trade tariffs, compared to the French attitude, which is good.0 -
In fact, the authority comes from the people, via referendum. The govt. can implement the will of the people directly, without going through the elected representatives, who are only the middlemen in this scenario. That's how it will play out, but at the same time it is a novel situation because referendums are quite rare in the UK.
I though we were all told prior to the referendum that it wasn't actually binding; Parliament could legally ignore it?0 -
The Parliament has not said it needs to be consulted. A hairdresser has. That is an important distinction.
In fact, the authority comes from the people, via referendum. The govt. can implement the will of the people directly, without going through the elected representatives, who are only the middlemen in this scenario. That's how it will play out, but at the same time it is a novel situation because referendums are quite rare in the UK.
Certainly, in my view, the UK government can give Art. 50 notice to the EU and, at the expiry of the notice period, the UK will cease to be a member of the Union, regardless of what (if anything) Parliament says.
But that won't achieve what Brexiters want. EU legislation has the force of law in the UK because the European Communities Act 1972 - an Act of the UK Parliament - says it does. And even if the UK leaves the Union, EU law will continue to apply in the UK until Parliament amends or repeals that Act.
So, to achieve what they seek to achieve through Brexit, they do need to get Parliament on board.
Similarly, whatever replacement arrangements are put in place as between the UK and the EU, and whatever arrangements are going to be put in place between the UK and third countries, are almost certain to require measures which can only be implemented by the UK Parliament.
And there's a wider point. The only reason the UK government - any UK government - holds office is because it enjoys the confidence of Parliament. If they have a major policy commitment - like Brexit - which they can't get through Parliament, they either have to abandon the policy commitment (which at this point is politically unthinkable) or dissolve Parliament and go to the country which they really, really don't want to do.
So, on the one hand the government doesn't need parliamentary approval to serve the Art. 50 notice, which commits the UK to leaving come what may. On the other hand, as a political reality they can't do this unless they are sure that Parliament will co-operate to implement the Brexit and the successor/replacement arrangements.0 -
Advertisement
-
What authority do the people have via referendum in the British Kingdom?
For example, when it came to Scottish devolution, the (UK) Parliament passed an Act to establish a Scottish Parliament and executive, to devolve powers to it, etc. But they included provisions in the Act to say (a) that there was first of all to be a referendum, and (b) that the rest of the Act would come into operation a fixed period after being approved in that referendum.
The result was, when the referendum result was declared, that was effective to bring Scottish devolution into effect some months later. No further action by the UK Parliament was required because the UK Parliament had already decreed that this was how the referendum would work.I though we were all told prior to the referendum that it wasn't actually binding; Parliament could legally ignore it?
Politically, of course, it creates a strong mandate for leaving the EU. And the mandate is all the stronger because the Tory government was elected on an explicit manifesto promise to (a) hold the referendum, and (b) respect the result. At this point they have to leave, unless they seek and obtain a new mandate to remain which would supersede the mandate conferred by the referendum. And right now I don't see that happening.0 -
The Parliament has not said it needs to be consulted. A hairdresser has. That is an important distinction.
The interesting aspect of this being that the case is likely to pit various state institutions against each other in a way which most have tried to avoid.0 -
The Parliament has not said it needs to be consulted. A hairdresser has. That is an important distinction.In fact, the authority comes from the people, via referendum. The govt. can implement the will of the people directly, without going through the elected representatives, who are only the middlemen in this scenario. That's how it will play out, but at the same time it is a novel situation because referendums are quite rare in the UK.Of more interest to us is maintaining the free trade status between Ireland and the UK. In an ideal world this would be a no-brainer because both of us want to maintain a free trade arrangement.But in this brave new world where all the big EU decisions are made in Berlin, we must wait to receive our orders. The EU demands will be decided by Merkel and presented to the French for agreement, and then subsequently rubber-stamped at an EU Council of Ministers meeting. Apparently Merkel is less enthusiastic about "punishing" the UK with hefty trade tariffs, compared to the French attitude, which is good.
Is this new world newer than June of this year? When were the treaty changes?
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-15/the-myth-of-germany-s-dominance-in-the-euThe highest-ranking German in the EU hierarchy is Martin Schulz, president of the European parliament. The EU legislature is weaker than any of its members' own national parliaments, unable even to initiate legislation. It's the faceless technocrats on the European Commission's staff that do that, and Germans only make up 10 percent of the commission's non-technical staff, while Germany's population makes up 16 percent of the European Union's.Germany is, indeed, a little overrepresented when it comes to contributing money to EU programs. Its 2015 economic output was about 20.7 percent of the entire EU's, but its share of the EU budget reached 21.4%.Germany, of course, is the bloc's biggest economic power and its most populous country, but if the EU were designed to give an institutional advantage to bigger countries, nobody would have joined it in the first place.In 2016, German dominance in the EU is a myth. The only advantage Germany has over its neighbors is a stronger economy.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »The people have as much authority as Parliament grants them.
Being an unwritten constitution, you won't find the answer written down anywhere. But you can go back and look at the evolution of the state and at historical precedent.
In theory the monarch is ultimately in charge, but she delegates the powers of government to Parliament, which in turn delegates governance to a subset which is the Cabinet.
A previous monarch got stripped of his powers by Cromwell and beheaded. But only because enough people had backed Cromwell and his republicans. But subsequently the people changed their minds and restored the monarchy. Since then the Parliament and the Monarchy have in theory ruled by consensus, at the insistence of the people.Peregrinus wrote: »Yes, that's right. Legally speaking, the Brexit referendum was just a very large opinion poll. The legislation for the conduct of that referendum doesn't provide for the declaration of the result to have any legal consequences or effect at all. Politically, of course, it creates a strong mandate for leaving the EU. And the mandate is all the stronger because the Tory government was elected on an explicit manifesto promise to (a) hold the referendum, and (b) respect the result. At this point they have to leave, unless they seek and obtain a new mandate to remain which would supersede the mandate conferred by the referendum. And right now I don't see that happening.
Neither mandate is written down, but of the two, the direct mandate is stronger. Both mandates rely on an honour system. For example, if a PM loses the confidence of the people's representatives in Parliament, he/she voluntarily goes to the monarch to resign. That way, nobody gets beheaded.0 -
Not sure if you had time to read the article fully - but the hairdresser, together with a number of other people, are taking a case likely to end up before the UK's Supreme Court regarding whether Article 50 can be triggered without a vote in parliament.
The interesting aspect of this being that the case is likely to pit various state institutions against each other in a way which most have tried to avoid.
Just because a hairdresser thinks they should, does not mean it will happen, or is even likely to happen.0 -
I have read it. Where does it say that Parliament intends to defy the referendum result and will refuse to pass any legislation required?
Just because a hairdresser thinks they should, does not mean it will happen, or is even likely to happen.
The Parliament not saying it has to be consulted (equally, has also not said that it does not!) is not the same as the Parliament saying that it does not need to be consulted.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »
For example, where was Enda Kenny when these two meetings were being held, one on the Monday and one on the Saturday after the Brexit referendum?
Germany's modus operandi is to make a policy, then get agreement in progressively widening circles. By the time Ireland gets to hear about it, the new policy is being presented as a fait accompli and we have no choice but to agree and rubber stamp it an official council of ministers meeting.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The Parliament not saying it has to be consulted (equally, has also not said that it does not!) is not the same as the Parliament saying that it does not need to be consulted.0
-
So you think we will have a say in what trade tariffs, if any, are introduced between the UK and Ireland?For example, where was Enda Kenny when these two meetings were being held, one on the Monday and one on the Saturday after the Brexit referendum?
. Given that the UK has not presented what it wants from the EU, there is almost no discussion to be had about what tariffs might be necessary. The UK electing to join EFTA would see tariffless trade continue as is, just a removal from the Political element of the EU.
Germany's modus operandi is to make a policy, then get agreement in progressively widening circles.By the time Ireland gets to hear about it, the new policy is being presented as a fait accompli and we have no choice but to agree and rubber stamp it an official council of ministers meeting.It's the faceless technocrats on the European Commission's staff that do that, and Germans only make up 10 percent of the commission's non-technical staff, while Germany's population makes up 16 percent of the European Union's.
If a 'fait accompli' is presented to the European Council then that is the same for all members of the Council, and certainly, certainly not to any tangible benefit to Germany.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Did you read the article that I linked? Who does the negotiations on the part of the EU? The 'faceless technocrats' yes? Of which there demonstrably is no bias towards Germany.
Its like saying that TD's in the Dail do not have much influence over our domestic legislation because "faceless civil servants draught the Dail bills". The European Commission has zero authority in the EU.0
Advertisement